尽管2003年8月美国东北部和中西部大面积停电等警钟敲响，州际输电的投资并没有跟上对更多电力容量的需求。输电选址权已经成为那些声称“不在我的后院”（NIMBY）综合症正在推动美国能源政策的人的口头禅。联邦能源监管委员会有机会通过该法案，展示其国家选址权力Energy Policy Act of 2005(EPAct), but their game plan未能通过法院审查.Today, siting new transmission remains a state’s rights issue as it has always been.
由于越来越多的可再生能源项目，传输选址争议正在增加，这些能源项目越来越多，希望以稀缺的传输能力互连。现在，由于国家可再生组合标准的潜力，另一层复杂性是在发挥的潜力，如果不是数千个of new renewable projects that will all seek priority for grid access.
国会领导人提议建造新的输电线路，专门用于移动通信，这给不确定性增加了不确定性only可再生能源海岸到海岸，州的权利将具有次要的重要性。Regardless, ratepayers will end up paying the tens of billions of dollars for these new lines and further driving up the cost of electricity.
Below, we discuss how FERC failed to implement the siting authority granted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and provide a case study on the reasons for failure. Part II (tomorrow) will look at the latest rendition of the siting authority power grab: Obama’s promise of a 3,000 mile coast-to-coast “green power” superhighway. We’ll also discuss the recent work by regional transmission planning organizations to bring renewable energy to market and the costs to do so. It won’t come as a surprise that the costs are extremely high.
Siting new transmission lines is an exercise in patience and endurance. The industry has plenty of war stories about state, county or local authorities being unable or unwilling to approve new transmission projects, especially projects that merely transit through a state to get energy to an out-of-state market. One of the long running and always contentious debates is the resistance of Connecticut residents to allow transmission of electricity generated upstate to pass that power through to New York City.
在宣布当时的计划计划，那么能源秘书塞缪尔·博德曼表示，“塑造了20世纪的能源政策的狭隘利益将不再工作。”也许是这样，但不是服务“国家利益”，拟议的走廊看起来很像很多偷猎路线。据说他们的结果使得在本地抵抗建筑物的地区能够购买从其他地区购买更便宜的电力 - 以避免支付“他们”权力的全部费用。这个计划的问题是，它使野蛮的产生区域具有环境和损失 - 资源成本和后果。
In the interest of full disclosure, I worked on the design and construction of SDG&E’s last major power plant project Encina Unit 5 when it was constructed in 1976-78. I was also present when then-CEO Tom Page announced in 1978 that SDG&E was not going to construct any more plants but would become a “wires” company and in the future import energy from other sources rather than construct any new plants. To do so was a pure business decision made at the time given the resistance of local governments and citizens to building any more power plants. This business plan was a conscious decision to avoid building local generation and rely solely on imported energy to cover load growth. To their credit, the plan has worked for over 30 years, but now Arizona has the surplus power capacity and a growing population and is unwilling to share their electricity resources. This is a规则改变者for Southern California.
Buddy, Can You Spare a Megawatt?
I recently drove my 4WD truck to the top of a small mountain just south of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona, about 100 miles from the California border. The power park view warms a power engineer’s heart: The three-unit 3,739-MW nuke lies to the north, and to the south sit Sempra’s 1,250-MW Mesquite Generating Station, Pinnacle West Energy’s 1,136-MW Redhawk Power Plant, and LS Power’s 713-MW Arlington Valley Energy Facility. Travel over the next hill and south a few miles and you’ll find the 2,400-MW Panda Gila River Project. All but Palo Verde are gas-fired combined-cycle plants.
I’d venture that a big chunk of the more than 9,200 MW is just aching to find a path into Southern California. Why? The average retail electricity price is almost 50% higher there than in Arizona: 15 cents/kWh vs. 8.5 cents/kWh. Finding new customers willing to pay more for the same commodity would be a business coup for the plants’ owners. The only hurdle would be permitting the new lines needed to deliver it. But the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) has a different vision of how that power will be used—generate it in Arizona, use it in Arizona.
To its credit, the ACC saw through the “master plan” scheme and unanimously voted down a Southern California Edison (SCE) proposal to build a 231-mile transmission line to connect the power park to a substation near Palm Springs (and ultimately to the Sunrise Powerlink and points west). SCE execs argued that the link would “increase the state’s ability to transmit energy.” What they really meant was the ability to transmit energy to Southern California. Bill Mundell, an Arizona energy commissioner, explained the rejection succinctly at the time: “I don’t want Arizona to be the energy farm for California.” Commissioner Kris Mayes added, “You [SCE] are trying to drop a giant extension cord into Arizona.”
The final meeting on the project turned a bit testy when commissioners quizzed Dian Grueneich of the California Public Utilities Commission about her state’s recent lack of progress building new power plants and transmission lines. Mundell asked, “Why should Arizona put its natural resources, environment, and future energy supply on the line while California does relatively little?”
美国里士满的美国第四巡回赛院审法院。发布了decisionin a case brought against the regulatory commission by the Piedmont Environmental Council and multiple states and parties—including the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
The petitioners had filed requests for rehearing on FERC’s final rule, arguing that the agency had erred in its interpretation. The parties also asked the court to review several rulemaking decisions FERC had made with the application of that interpretation.
Michael said that FERC’s standing interpretation would mean that state commissions would lose jurisdiction unless they approved every permit application in a national interest corridor. “Under such a reading it would be futile for a state commission to deny a permit based on traditional considerations like cost and benefit, land use and environmental impacts, and health and safety. It would be futile, in other words, for a commission to do its normal work,” he wrote.
The court’s decision now sets hurdles for FERC-approved projects whose public commissions have issued denials but that hasn’t slowed down the pressure to overhaul (again) the provision of the EPAct failed to pass judicial scrutiny.
In essence, FERC powers granted under EPAct were neutralized by the appeals court’s decision and Arizona’s rejection of the construction of a new transmission line stands.
但是,这个法院的判决不终结the push for federalizing transmission siting authority. Far from it. The next page of the game plan uses the supposed need for a “green” coast-to-coast transmission superhighway as cover for nationalizing all future transmission siting decisions.
— Also contributing to this article was Sonal Patel, POWER senior writer